Registration Act | Contested Decree Declaring Pre-Existing Rights By Adverse Possession Does Not Require Compulsory Registration Or Stamp Duty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 498A IPC | Vague Allegations Without Specific Overt Acts Against Relatives Cannot Sustain Prosecution: Kerala High Court Motor Accident Claims | Tribunal Must Adopt Standardised Notional Income Charts For Determining Loss Of Future Earnings: Karnataka High Court Suit On Dishonoured Cheque Is Based On Statutory Liability Under Negotiable Instruments Act And Not On Underlying Original Transaction: Kerala High Court State Cannot Re-Litigate Grounds Rejected In Earlier Final Judgment To Deny Employment: Allahabad High Court Orders Appointment of Librarians JJ Act | JJBs Cannot Simply 'Return' Child In Conflict With Law To Police Without Passing Placement Orders If Bail Not Granted: Andhra Pradesh High Court PMLA | Official Banking Transactions In Usual Course Of Business Cannot Be Construed As Proceeds Of Crime: Bombay High Court Section 41A CrPC | Serving Notice After Arrest Is Illegal, Police Cannot Simply Arrest To Ask Questions: Bombay High Court Fit-Out Possession Without Completion Certificate Is Not Valid Possession; Builder Cannot Charge Delayed Interest Or GST When Default Is On Its Part: Chandigarh State Commission Appellate Court Must Not Disturb Acquittal Unless Trial Court’s View Is Perverse Or Manifestly Illegal: Gujarat High Court Order 12 Rule 6 CPC | Landlord Divesting Ownership Via Pre-Suit Sale Deed Loses Locus Standi Under Section 109 TP Act; Summary Eviction Decree Impermissible: Delhi High Court Section 151 CPC Cannot Be Invoked For Restoration Of Possession When Statutory Remedy Under Section 144 Exists: Calcutta High Court 'Mere Assertion Of Higher Rent By Landlord Cannot Oust DRC Act': Delhi High Court Sets Aside Eviction Decree, Remands Matter Back Arbitration Clause In Agreement No Safe Harbour For Criminal Breach Of Trust; Pre-Arrest Bail In Economic Offences An Exception: Allahabad High Court Order 7 Rule 10 CPC | Pecuniary Jurisdiction Cannot Be Determined Solely On Plaintiff's Oral Admission In Cross-Examination: Madras High Court Principle Of Parity Applies Even If Earlier Order Was Declared 'Not A Precedent': Orissa High Court Acquisition Lapses If Authority Inactive For Over 5 Years Excluding Stay; Bar On Subsequent Purchasers Inapplicable If Land Stood Released: Madhya Pradesh High Court Senior Citizens Act  | Summary Eviction Remedy Cannot Be Extended To Daughter-In-Law As She Is Neither 'Child' Nor 'Relative': Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 471 IPC | Mere Absence Of Direct Forgery Does Not Absolve Accused Of Using Forged Document As Genuine: Rajasthan High Court Criminal Proceedings Against Husband's Relatives Cannot Continue On Vague & Omnibus Allegations Without Specific Overt Acts: Telangana High Court Magistrate's Inability To Recall Order Does Not Preclude High Court From Restoring Cheque Bounce Complaint Dismissed In Default: Punjab & Haryana High Court

“Bail Denied to Accused Allegedly Running Jihadi WhatsApp Group: Allahabad Court Cites Gravity of Allegations”

07 May 2024 2:49 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judicial decision, the Hon’ble Pankaj Bhatia, J., presiding over Court No. 75, rejected the bail application of an accused in a case involving allegations of running a WhatsApp group that spread jihadi literature and videos. The applicant, identified as Inamul Haq alias Inamul Imtiyaz, was charged with being the administrator of the group and promoting anti-India sentiments.

The FIR lodged against Inamul Haq revealed disturbing allegations. The applicant was alleged to have formed a WhatsApp group that disseminated literature classified as jihadi, along with sharing videos promoting extremist ideologies. The applicant was reportedly the administrator of the group and even admitted to aspiring to become a “jihadi.” The FIR also mentioned that Inamul Haq was associated with a group known as “Lashkar,” and that he had been operating a WhatsApp group for a significant duration.

The prosecution argued that the applicant’s involvement went beyond merely spreading literature. It was alleged that the WhatsApp group actively facilitated the acquisition of weapons, further escalating the gravity of the charges. The group was purportedly responsible for enticing individuals to join its ranks.

The court’s observation stressed the seriousness of the allegations and the potential threat posed to public order. Citing the relevant legal provisions, including Section 121-A of the Indian Penal Code, the court highlighted the offense of conspiring to overawe the Central or State Government through criminal force. While acknowledging the right to practice and propagate religion as guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution, the court noted that the nature of the allegations indicated the potential conspiracy to commit a serious offense.

In light of the gravity of the allegations and the potential risk to public order, the court concluded that no case for granting bail was established. Consequently, the bail application was rejected.

This decision serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between religious freedoms and potential threats to national security. The court’s emphasis on the seriousness of the allegations underscores the need to ensure public order while safeguarding fundamental rights.

The rejection of the bail application sends a strong message about the court’s commitment to upholding the law and maintaining public safety in cases that involve potential conspiracy and promotion of extremist ideologies.

Date of Decision: 9.8.2023

Inamul Haq Alias Inamul Imtiyaz  vs State of U.P.   

Latest Legal News